Amtrak Bullet Train Leaves Station 30
Java Pimp writes "USA Today is reporting "America's first bullet train pulled out of Union Station on time Thursday morning. The snub-nosed Acela Express made the Washington-to-New York trip in two hours, 26 minutes, arriving two minutes ahead of schedule and setting an Amtrak speed record when it hit 135 mph in New Jersey. The old record was 125 mph. The train was expected to reach its top speed of 150 mph later in the day on the trip from New York to Boston.""
About time.. But too late? (Score:1)
If this were europe.. and if wishes were ponies...
Re:Word Problem (Score:1)
Considering that approximately 210 miles seperate New York City and Boston...
start train1 = 375
start train2 = 440
x = time for train1 in minutes
(x-65) = time for train2
speed of train1 = 2.083 miles per minute
speed of train2 = 2.333 miles per minute
2.083x + 2.333(x-65) = 210
2.083x + 2.333x - 151.645 = 210
2.083x + 2.333x = 361.645
4.416x = 361.645
x = 81.894248
So the time train1 collided is 81.894248 minutes after it left, or 496.89425 minutes after midnight, or at 7:36
Re:Self-sufficient? (Score:1)
Federal rail support is a subsidy, since it comes from general revenue, including some of those gasoline taxes! In any case, the federal gravy train is slated to continue indefinitely. Amtrak is only required to become "operationally" self-sufficient in 2003. Uncle Sam will still be kicking in big, big, bucks to buy new capital equipment and facilities.
Re:Will it make money? (Score:1)
the northeast corridor is the only area in which amtrak is actually profitable. their northeast area offsets the losses they incur elsewhere in the country.
just some numbers. these are 3 different train ways you can get from NYC to Philadelphia.
Jersey Transit to Septa - $14+$10 - 2 hr 15 min.
Amtrak regular - $118 - 1 hr 30 min.
Amtrak Acela - $200 - 1 hr 15 min.
on the acela, you're paying for more than speed. it's like paying for the difference between business class and economy class on a plane. speed is great, but it's also the perks like no noisy kids, bigger seats, and plugs and stuff for your laptop.
this line won't be for family travel, but for the large number of business users that need to go from Boston to DC quickly (without wasting the day) and don't want to take a plane.
personally, I see it as being extremely successful since i'm sure I'll be using it atleast a dozen times in the next month or two.
Re:Not that it makes much difference . . . (Score:1)
Wrongo. Philadelphia has a mass transit train meeting the airport. I was stuck in PHL for four days last year and used the train to go downtown and buy new clothes. Almost tried to take Amtrak home, but the closest station to home is 30 miles away and there was no guaruntee I would make it due to the ice.
Re:dangit, ambuguity sucks (Score:1)
A bugg
Re:Self-sufficient? (Score:1)
Re:Will it make money? (Score:1)
Well its a start but... (Score:1)
What needs be done, is a good network of public transportation trains for metropolotin areas, to replace all that damnd rush hour, commuter and burb to burb traffic.
I don't care right now, how fast amtrak can get me from boston to new york, the'll still charge me more than American Airlines half the time....now if they could get one of these for a crosstown express.....now THAT would be cool. From one end of Chicago to the other, in 10 minutes
Re:Well its a start but... (Score:1)
You should try riding on just about any line in downtown Tokyo during rush hour. Yes, you can get from one end to the other in 20 minutes or so, but the railways offer no guarantees on how squished you come out the other end.
I'm just glad my commute is in the opposite direction.
Re:What a record (Score:1)
Re:Not that it makes much difference . . . (Score:1)
Logan is geographically the closest airport to downtown in a major city in the US though it takes about an hour to get from the gate to downtown (though that'll improve when the Ted Williams Tunnel opens.
Re:Self-sufficient? (Score:1)
<ul>
<li>A 10-30% cut in fares (Increasing volume)</li>
<li>Sacking 40-60% of it's workers (increasing efficiency by a factor of 2-3 times)</li>
</ul>
If that is done, not only will Amtrak be profitable but it will be running significantly more high-speed service throughout the country (Florida, Atlanta-Chicago, Seattle-Portland, San Diego-LA, et al).
Re:Track limiting top speed? (Score:1)
The Acela trains are track-limited to much lower speeds over most of the route between Washington (DC), New York City, and Boston. The 150 mph top speed quoted will only be possible over short sections of track. So even if the engines and cars were designed with an absolute maximum speed of 150 mph, that's not going to be a limiting factor.
Re:Because Big Oil (big 'W') lobbies Congress (Score:2)
The highways are subsidized from the gasoline/diesel fuel taxes, so they do actually pay for themselves. In fact, there are several states that are griping that the gas taxes generate more revenue than what is paid out for construction and maintenance.
The interstate highway system killed the passenger train service. Not only was it subsidized (although there are a few toll roads), it offered something that the trains couldn't: freedom. A traveller could decide when and where they wanted to go w/o having to consult some schedule or worry about strikes, annoying/threatening people on the train, etc. The same reasons apply for local commute traffic also.
Where it's been built, fast light rail in the US has been a success. Park & ride lots in the suburbs with fast train routes to downtown business/manufacturing centers make a lot of sense. The Feds should also include all light trucks (SUVs, pickups, vans) in the CAFE standards that the auto makers are supposed to comply with. The popularity of SUVs not only contributes to a lot of extra oil usage, but shows that many Americans have more money than brains (a SUV typically costs $2-5K _extra_ a year to operate). It still amazes me to see one person commuting in huge SUV. Good grief! If you have the cash to afford one of those beasts, they have the cash to have a cheap used econobox for commuting.
Because Big Oil (big 'W') lobbies Congress (Score:2)
It's insane. Welcome to US Energy Policy: corporate welfare to the highest bidder.
Of *course* it is economically cheaper for even high-speed trains than flying, but thanks to a government that shifts costs around, the end result is fuel prices are subsudized.
Don't think so? Consider that 55% of the US trade defecit is *oil*. That's all -- over half our economic drain is just one product... amazing.
Ignoring environmental costs for a simplified arguement, the true cost of oil is many times what a barrel costs. If oil is not subsidized, as some might argue, then let's try pulling back the US Navy carrier FLEETS stationed in the Middle East, since they are there to promote Democracy and not to keep the shipping lanes open (riiiigght?
While we're at it, we could scale back our economic aid to Egypt and Israel (billions per year each), and put the savings toward our budget defecit or even some loan forgiveness to sub-Saharan Africa.
The point is, weaning Amtrak off government subsidies while not doing the same for the massive highway projects is a total joke.
Most people are so widely distributed in the subburbs, someday it'll take $15 in gas to get $2.00 in milk. Heh. Anyone factor in WALKING DISTANCE to the store when shopping for a home??
Serial Experiments Lain (Score:2)
"Get back lost time!"
Re:Self-sufficient? (Score:2)
That's the common myth. Doing a little math is, as always, worthwhile. Gasoline taxes only pay for about 60% of highway construction and maintenance. The rest comes from general revenue.
If one were to add in the other costs of the automobile infrastructure -- pollution and health costs, the militarization of the Gulf, etc ... the Amtrak subsidy is pocket change.
Self-sufficient? (Score:2)
Hmm. How much time are they giving the federally subsidized US highway system to become self-sufficient?
What a record (Score:2)
When I have to travel from my home in Paris (France) to my parents in Bordeaux, it is as fast, cheaper and more convenient to board on a train than to take a flight.
Distance between both towns: about 360 miles (580km).
Train cost for a < 25 years old: less than $26. Full fare rate $47.
Airline cost: cannot be less than $40 (full fare rate beginning at $100).
Train: tube (30 min), wait (10 min), train (3 hours), walk (15 min). Total 3h55. Quite reliable (strikes excepted), not too dependant on weather, and I can use my laptop all the way in the train.
Flight: tube (30 min), wait (20 min), bus (30 min), wait (30 min), flight (1:15), car (25 min). Total 3h30, but my parents have to come to the airport. Quite dependant on weather, and still dependant on strikes. Can't work in the tube, neither in the bus, I can just download my mails while waiting in the airport and read them later onboard (allowed time: about 40min).
As a result, there is no more room on december 23rd trains, but I could buy a student fare ticket (very limited supply) for a flight the same day.
The article does not mention it, but the current world speed record (on "conventional" railways) of more than 320 mph (515km/h) was achieved on this line in the early 90's during test runs, with tuned hardware.
For those interested in high speed train technologies :
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/tgv/ tgv index.html [unipi.it]
Re:Will it make money? (Score:2)
When I travel from Boston to NY or vice versa, I've started to take the train instead of the bus because it's infinitely more comfortable, although until they finish rolling out Acela the bus is still faster, and will always be cheaper. Driving is nice, of course, mainly because of the flexibility you have, but there's also the 3-5 mindnumbing hours of staring at the road. It's also nice to take the train and get some work done, or at least pretend and play computer games. Of course, the last time I took it, I had nothing to do and was bored out of my mind.
I'd say that if you're going between Boston and NY, the train is one of the nicest ways to go, and will be much better now that it takes less time (currently it takes about 5 hours on the cheap, non-express train - bus takes about 4 depending on traffic). As for Boston to DC, fly, unless you really do want to spend a day in the train. I actually think it's cheaper to fly, if you get a pack of shuttle tickets.
Oh, and surprisingly you can get some vague, markety information on Acela from acela.com [acela.com].
Re:dangit, ambuguity sucks (Score:2)
And how many here wouldn't pay several hundred dollars for a cross-country ride in an SR-71?
And if you look out the left side of the aircraft, you'll see..... nevermind. You missed it.
i was on jersey transit that day (Score:2)
they had to stop the train because they weren't sure what the wind sheer would do to our train that was going the other way.
even stopped, it felt like the train hit part of our train or atleast took off something... that was one hell of a wind sheer.
dangit, ambuguity sucks (Score:2)
-----
Re:Because Big Oil (big 'W') lobbies Congress (Score:2)
I know you're talking about speed, but remember these are not high-speed tracks capable of Woe the day when gasoline hits $7.00 in the US. 185mph. Plus, the US is so subburbanized that there are few places you can move trains that fast.... gots to "protect the children" as the mother lobby calls it.
Actually, back on the 7th, a ballot referendum in Florida passed which adds an amendment to our state's constitution that requires that a high-speed rail system be built between the 5 most populus cities in FL by 2002. From what I have read in the paper about the proposed systems, they are talking about serious speed using MagLev trains or something similar.
Will it make money? (Score:2)
Hmmm... I don't know how well the demand will be with prices like that (they're only one way!). I would imagine that the general public would rather spend the extra time on the slower trains or just drive. Anyone travel in the Northeast often? Any opinions on what the best way to go would be?
Not that it makes much difference . . . (Score:2)
Having flown the TGV from Geneva to Paris, I must say that it is very comfortable. I hope the idea takes off here in the US as it has in Europe (there are several different TGV lines now operating between many major cities in Europe, including the Eurostar London-Paris Chunnel train). Too bad I moved back West before Amtrak got the line done.
As to the alternatives, flight is lousy because you can't get right in to NYC via air travel, whereas the train takes you straight to the heart of the city. Boston and DC have airports inside the city limits, but not nearly as convenient as the train stations. And let's not even consider driving. I-95 has got to be the worst roadway in the country for construction (no two states can agree on when work should be done, so it all gets done in fits and starts all over the place) and congestion (even with 5 lanes in some places). The Acela not only rivals travel time via air, but trims off just that much more time since you don't need to then find your way to the city proper from the airport. Only DC has a Metro line meeting an airport (National, now called Ronald Reagan, presumably because he fired all the air traffic controllers).
Re:Will it make money? (Score:2)
Anyone travel in the Northeast often? Any opinions on what the best way to go would be?
I have gone Boston -> New York -> Boston several times, by train, plane, automobile, and bus. The train is infinitely more convenient, as the stations are in Boston and New York, not on the outskirts, as with planes. (La Guardia, JFK, and Logan airports are about 45 minutes outside their respective cities, to over-simplify.) The total travel time with the older, slower train service was about an hour slower than the plane. The newer service should eliminate most of that difference.
Air travel between Boston and New York is actually car/bus/subway travel, possibly with transfers between bus and/or subway lines, then schlep your bags through the terminal and security checkpoints to the gate, then plane travel, then again with the car, bus, or subway. Train travel between the two locations is only train travel and perhaps a subway: one mode of transit, only one transfer. At least, that's the way it was for me because I lived close to the Boston station, while New York's Penn Station is well-connected to subway lines.
The bus is slow and uncomfortable, and driving is similarly less than thrilling. On the train, there's room to spread out and you can go for a walk, while bus, car, and plane travel is more confining. All things considered, the train is my preferred mode of transit for Boston New York.
Re:Will it make money? (Score:3)
Any opinions on what the best way to go would be?
Well, I don't travel out there that often, but I do make a round now and then. From what I remember, a round trip air shuttle flight between those three cities typically (non-promotional rate) costs between $150 and $300, depending on what times and what airports you use. Major hubs, like JFK, are cheaper to go to/from than regional airports, like Baltimore.
If I remember, the rail between Boston and New York is supposed to take about three hours, and a plane flight takes about an hour, not counting airport check in time and security, etc. If the train stations at both ends are in convenient places, it might be about a wash, time-wise.
The problem is that when you get out to larger distances, the proportion of check in time to travel time gets smaller, and air travel is just faster. So to make it time-economical, you need high-traffic routes that aren't much farther apart than Boston and New York or Washington and Philadelphia, and you just don't get that much of anywhere in the US besides the east coast. They'd have to get significantly cheaper to compete with airlines anywhere else.
BMagneton
Word Problem (Score:3)